User:VANESSAzyy/I-novel/Zwdy Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • VANESSAzyy
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:VANESSAzyy/I-novel

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, she managed the original lead into several categories, which makes the article more clear.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, it gives a definition of the subject discussed.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, it gives information about when it's founded and there is a major section about the history.
  • However, it's good to mention a little bit about the I-novel in China in the Lead since you wrote about it in a section.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It had a reasonable length.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The content are arranged in appropriate sections, and they are expanded based on the original version of the article. It's good to see there are even sub-categories under the section "History", which really makes the article more coherent.

The contents are up-to-date. And references are updated.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone is neutral. Most of the information are describing facts and histories, so there isn't really any heavily biased claims.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The sources are not current, but it's reasonable because the article is about a genre of literacy.

The history behind the genre is better presented with old references. However, it might be helpful to include some current commentaries of the genre. And some more recent examples too.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The contents are pretty well written, but I think it would be better to have less parentheses in the article because they could make the article appears less professional.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

There isn't any images. It could include some photos of example works.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The overall quality of the article is definitely improved, but I think there are still works to be done on polishing sentences and word choices.

The article is much more arranged and comprehensive than the original one.

Good job!!